Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s rant

July 13, 2005.
In my July 9 post I asked whether there might be some truth in
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s
article claiming a massive conspiracy between the government and drug
companies to "poison a generation of American children." I admitted that there might be but said that I was not going to
waste my time tracking down every claim he makes since I already know that
he has distorted some very important data and twisted facts to serve his
purpose. I'm not going to try to respond to every claim he makes, but one in
particular ought to be addressed: the claim that protecting drug companies
in the Homeland Security Act from lawsuits claiming thimerosal causes autism
is the smoking gun for the conspiracy hypothesis. Here is what Kennedy
writes:

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful
lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received
$873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working
to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been
filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist
has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents --
including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer
of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped
a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security
bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000
copies of his book on bioterrorism. The measure was repealed by Congress in
2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an
anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from
vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits are of such magnitude that
they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to
deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says Andy Olsen, a legislative
assistant to Frist.*

I want to make it clear that I do not
know what Bill Frist's motives were, but I am willing to assume they were
selfish and greedy and part of payback for contributions to Republicans.
Others may also be involved and they, too, may have ulterior motives. For
example, a
CBS story reports that House Majority Leader Dick Armey claimed that he
was the one who put the Lilly protection clause in the 2002 Homeland
Security act. "I did it and I'm proud of it," he said. Why? He claimed that
he did it to keep vaccine-makers from going out of business under the weight
of mounting lawsuits. "It's a matter of national security," he said at the
time. "We need their vaccines if the country is attacked with germ weapons."
Furthermore, Armey claimed that he was asked to put in the protection clause
by the White House.

Regardless of the real motivations of
Frist or Armey or anyone else for that matter, the argument that Lilly and
other drug companies should be given protection from thimerosal lawsuits as
a matter of national security must be considered on its own merits. People
with good motives can make bad arguments and people with evil motives can
make good arguments. The important question here is whether the national
security argument is cogent or not.

Of course, as soon as I present my case
that the argument is cogent, I know my motives will be questioned. So be it.
However, if you know nothing else about logic you should at least know that
attacking a person's motives rather than the person's argument is
fallacious. For those who don't already know, it's called the ad hominem
fallacy.

The national security issue is not bogus.
There is a real threat from bio-terror and bio-error (remember
the deadly flu virus sent to labs around the world by mistake?). We do
not have socialized medicine. All drugs and vaccines are produced by private
enterprises. The same is true for most weapons. I would like to live in a
country where no weapons of mass destruction are allowed to be produced. But
I can't deny that the government has an obligation to protect its citizens
and therefore has an obligation to protect those industries that are
essential to protecting its citizens. On the other hand, the duty to protect
these vital industries has limits. A protected industry should not be
allowed to run roughshod over citizens' rights or cause intentional harm to
citizens without being held accountable. For example, no arms industry
company should go unpunished if it were to test its weapons on innocent
civilians. No drug company should go unpunished if it were to infect
innocent people with smallpox in order to test its vaccines.

But some protection of vital industries
is warranted. People should be allowed to sue weapons manufacturers in some
circumstances but not every time somebody is killed accidentally or
intentionally with a gun, otherwise the industry would go bankrupt and be
unable to supply the military with needed weaponry. If lawsuits without much
merit became a threat to a vital industry, the government would have a duty
to prohibit those lawsuits.

There are two questions that need to be
answered regarding government protection of drug companies from lawsuits
claiming thimerosal caused autism. First, are these lawsuits probably
without merit? Second, do these lawsuits threaten to bankrupt a vital
industry?

If you read my post of July 9, you know
that I believe a strong case has been made that the answer to the first
question is a resounding YES. Thus, I would say that there is nothing
intrinsically wrong with lawmakers protecting drug companies from such
lawsuits. However, this protection comes in the Homeland Security Act. Thus,
the second question, even though more difficult to provide a slam-dunk
argument for, must be answered.

One question we must ask is how much
money are we talking about in these lawsuits? Is it enough to threaten to
shut down or intimidate drug companies to the point that they could not
provide needed drugs and vaccines in the case of bio-terror or bio-error?
Another thing we might consider is whether any big company has ever been
closed down by fear rather than scientific evidence through lawsuits. The
second question is easy to answer. It happened to Dow Corning with silicone
breast implants.

The two experts who testified for the lawyers who sued
Dow Corning over breast implants were seemingly reputable scientists.
They testified to the causal connection between breast implants and such
things as connective tissue disease. Dow paid off millions and filed for
bankruptcy. Jenny Jones and Oprah had programs featuring women who'd had
breast implants and were suffering from painful disorders. The general
public would reasonably conclude from such behavior that there must be
strong evidence that breast implants caused these disorders. Yet, the rest
of the medical scientific community maintains that given the more than one
million women who have had breast implants, it would be expected by
chance, if there were no causal connection between the implants and
disease, that about 1% or 10,000 women would be ill, because that is the
percent of women in the general population who suffer from these problems.
That is what the studies have found. If there were a causal connection,
the percentage of women who'd had breast implants suffering from diseases
such as connective tissue disease should be significantly higher than that
for women who do not have breast implants. It isn't.

It is hard not to be moved by anyone's suffering, but lawyers,
scientists and jurors have a responsibility to get at the truth.
Unfortunately, all too often interest in the whole truth, necessary to
achieve justice, is suppressed in favor of finding a perpetrator, guilty
or not, who can be blamed for causing such pain and suffering.

Boston Globe Columnist Alex Beam has an interesting
article today in praise of Marcia Angell, former executive editor of
the New England Journal of Medicine. Angell brought the wrath of
feminist hell upon herself in 1992 when she wrote an editorial challenging
the Food and Drug Administration's decision to ban the manufacture of
silicone breast implants. She dared to challenge the FDA, even though
nobody had done any medical studies on the issue. It didn't matter. The
lawyers extorted a $4.25 billion settlement against the implant
manufacturers without needing any scientific evidence that the implants
were harming women. Angell got a book out it:
Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast
Implant Case.Recently, an FDA advisory panel voted to lift the
ban on silicone implants.

"The whole sequence was upside-down," Angel says. "First we had the
lawsuits, then the FDA ban, and then the announcement of the largest
class-action settlement in history. Only two months later did we get the
first scientific study of the issue in question. What causes this is the
use of expert witnesses. The expert gives an opinion, and that becomes the
evidence. Since they are hired by the adversaries, they get the most
extreme people they can find. In science it's the opposite. It doesn't
matter who you are; what matters are what your data say."

The data didn't support the lawyers or the feminists.

But it didn't matter. And it is likely
that it won't matter if lawyers go on the attack in pursuit of settlements
for alleged damage done by vaccines.

Kennedy quotes Dr. Robert Brent as
saying: "We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any
lawsuits." What Kennedy doesn't mention is that Brent was not concerned
about the merit of the lawsuits, but the cost given past "major tragedies
with statistical associations."*
Brent noted that it took 19 years and millions of dollars spent in several
thousand lawsuits before the FDA removed an unnecessary warning about
congenital heart disease and progestational agents. I don't know how many
lawsuits have been filed against the makers of vaccines with thimerosal. One
report I read claimed there are over 150. Kennedy writes of 4,200 lawsuits. There is also a class action
lawsuit. Do these suits constitute a large enough threat to justify the fear
that if allowed to go forward they could severely weaken or destroy by
bankruptcy the Lilly company, a company that produces vaccines that may be
needed in large quantities in case of a major bio-error or a bio-terrorist
attack? There's no way to know for sure, but the consequences could be so
disastrous that erring on the side of national security seems clearly
justified, even if it wasn't the real motive for the Lilly protection.
What's happened in the past doesn't necessarily have to happen again in the
future. But it could. Is the threat of bio-error or bio-terror real enough
to warrant such concern. You bet it is. If you doubt it, take a few minutes
to read Our Final Hour - A Scientist's Warning:
How Terror, Error, and Enviornmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future in
this Century--On Earth and Beyondby Martin Rees.

July 9, 2005.
Sounding like a demagogue intent on spreading fear and loathing among
voters, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spun a yarn about a grand
government/pharmaceutical conspiracy. The co-conspirators met in private in
the year 2000 at "the isolated Simpsonwood conference
center in Norcross, Georgia," and were motivated by greed and indifference to the suffering of
little children. Yet, they masquerade as benefactors bearing the gift of
lifesaving vaccines. According to Kennedy, public health officials have
conspired with drug makers to "poison a generation of American children." He
makes this and other unfounded claims in an article published in
Rolling Stone magazine and online at
Salon.com.

(update: 17 Jan 2011. "Salon.com announced: We've removed an explosive 2005 report by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about autism and vaccines....In the days after running 'Deadly Immunity,' we amended the story with five corrections (which can still be found logged here) that went far in undermining Kennedy's exposé. At the time, we felt that correcting the piece -- and keeping it on the site, in the spirit of transparency -- was the best way to operate. But subsequent critics, including most recently, Seth Mnookin in his book "The Panic Virus," further eroded any faith we had in the story's value. We've grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely."

On a related note: I'm currently reading "The Panic Virus" and I highly recommend it. Kerry Lauerman, Salon's Editor in Chief, who announced the removal of the Kennedy rant, failed to remind readers that Rolling Stone removed all references to the story from its website last spring. This fact is mentioned by Mnookin and may be why Salon.com finally got around to doing the same thing. RFK Jr. is apparently still proud of the piece. He refused to be interviewed by Mnookin and still has it posted on his website as of 19/1/2011. RTC. [/update])

Kennedy claims that "top government
scientists and health officials" and drug industry representative met five
years ago "to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions
about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to
infants and young children." And what study is he referring to? He claims
there was an analysis of the medical records of 100,000 children done
by Tom Verstraeten (TV), a Center for Disease Control epidemiologist.
According to Kennedy, TV found that thimerosal, a mercury-based
preservative that was removed from childhood vaccines beginning in 1995
because of political pressure fueled by fear rather than science, "appeared
to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other
neurological disorders among children." This would be quite a scoop, if
true, because several studies have been published that strongly support the
position that there is no causal link between childhood vaccines and autism
or other diseases. Unfortunately for Kennedy, the co-conspirators have
published a 286-page account of their "private" meeting.

According to Kennedy, TV told the
co-conspirators that he "was stunned by what he saw, citing the staggering
number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech
delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism." Actually, TV
says that he went back through the literature and "was actually stunned
by what I saw because I thought it is plausible." "It" refers to the
biological mechanism of mercury causing autism. TV goes on to say, after a
brief review of the literature, that "basically to me that leaves all the
options open, and that means I cannot exclude such a possible effect."
Kennedy would have us believe that TV thinks the evidence supports this
alleged link. TV says no such thing.

According to Kennedy,

Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health
Organization, declared that "perhaps this study should not have been done at
all." He added that "the research results have to be handled," warning that
the study "will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the
control of this group."

According to the published report of the
co-conspirators, what Dr. Clements actually says makes him appear to be
clairvoyant, for he seems to have predicted what characters like Kennedy
would do with anything the group had to say about the issue. Here is what
Clements said:

My message would be that any other study, and I like the
study that has just been described here very much. I think it makes a lot of
sense, but it has to be thought through. What are the potential outcomes and
how will you handle it? How will it be presented to a public and a media
that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever
means they have in store for them?

Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the
Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware, followed up Dr. Clements's
comments with more of the same and suggested not a cover-up but that more
research be done:

...no matter what you come up with somebody on one side will
accuse you of doing something to get a negative result. Then if you come up
with a positive result using the same data, the person on the other side
will say see, we were right, it is causal. So I really encourage the
investigators to get other populations to study because of the fact that I
do not think reanalysis of this data is going to be as helpful as we would
hope.

Kennedy writes:

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public
and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at
Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the
damaging data.

The fact is that this meeting occurred in
2000. By 1995, thimerosal in vaccines was beginning to be phased out
worldwide. By 1999 it was being phased out in the United States. "Today,
with the exception of some flu vaccines, none of the vaccines used in the
U.S. to protect preschool aged children against 12 infectious diseases
contain thimerosal as a preservative."*
Some pediatric vaccines have never had thimerosal in them (e.g.,
the MMR vaccine).

Several studies have
been published that demonstrate Kennedy doesn't know what he's talking
about.

Kennedy seems to have been sucked into
this maelstrom by fanatical advocates such as Mark Blaxill, whose daughter
is autistic, of Safe Minds. Kennedy
tells us:

I devoted time to study this
issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed.
If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly
allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of
American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest
scandals in the annals of American medicine. "The CDC is guilty of
incompetence and gross negligence," says Mark Blaxill, vice president of
Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in
medicines. "The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It's bigger
than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you've ever seen."

A new study published in
Pediatrics magazine claims that there is strong evidence from a
study
in Denmark that thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative that
used to be commonly used in vaccines, is an unlikely contributor to the
development of autism.

Danish researchers examined
data on 956 children diagnosed with autism from 1971 to 2000. They said
the autism incidence rate climbed steadily from less than one child per
10,000 in 1990 to nearly 5 per 10,000 in 1999, seven years after
thimerosal was removed from vaccines in Denmark.*
[Similar studies in
Canada and
Sweden
came to the same conclusion for the same reason.]

"Thimerosal has been
eliminated from childhood vaccines in most industrialized countries," said
lead author Dr. Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen. "If indeed thimerosal was an
important cause of autism, (autism rates) should soon begin to decline in
these countries."

Dr. Robert Byrd of the
University of California, Davis,
who has studied a surge in autism cases in California, said the Danish
study won't settle the question because it used only data on
hospitalized autistic children until 1995 and then added
outpatients after that. According to Dr. Byrd, this change in data
collection confuses the issue of whether there were any changes in the
autism rate itself. Even so, Byrd is well aware that autism rates continue
to rise around the world while the use of mercury-based vaccines
decreases.

Mark Blaxill of
Safe Minds (Sensible Action for
Ending Mercury-induced Neurological Disorders) goes much further than Byrd
and accuses the authors of the study of manipulating "the incidence of
autism in an attempt to clear thimerosal-containing vaccines of any role
in the etiology of the disease." Why would these scientists intentionally
manipulate data to exonerate thimerosal? Because, says Blaxill,
pediatricians, the ones who read Pediatrics, administer vaccines
and he thinks they want to stop the movement to eliminate thimerosal from
vaccines. Many pediatricians are no longer administering thimerosal-based
vaccines because such vaccines are being phased out on the off-chance that
the mercury in such vaccines is harmful. However, Blaxill believes that it
is damning that two of the authors of the study work for the Danish
manufacturer of thimerosal vaccines and Pediatrics didn't mention
this. Nor did they mention that it gets advertising revenue from
manufacturers of vaccines. Personally, I think it most appropriate that
someone who works for a manufacturer of a product that has been claimed to
be harmful would be involved in a study on the effects of that drug. I
could understand Blaxill's complaint if the researchers had found that as
thimerosal decreased so did autism but they refused to publish the study.
Also, the fact that manufacturers of vaccines advertise in Pediatrics
seems to be a pretty lame reason for only publishing articles that support
the claim that vaccines are detrimental, which is what Blaxill seems to be
suggesting. As to the point about disclosure, I think Blaxill is right and
I contacted his organization for the names of the two doctors and the
company they work for. Melissa Sneath of Safe Minds informed me that the
two doctors are Anne-Marie Plesner, M.D., Ph.D. and Peter H. Andersen,
M.D. They work for Statens Serum
Institute. I contacted Statens Serum Institute and Dr. Peter Andersen,
of the Department of Epidemiology, responded. He claims that Statens
hasn't used thimerosal in their vaccines for children for over ten years.

Since 1992 our own vaccine
production has been free of thimerosal, i.e. since 1992 no Danish child
has received a thimerosal-containing vaccine recommended within the
childhood vaccination program. The vaccine used against hepatitis B
contained thimerosal until 2000, but this vaccine is not a part of the
recommended schedule and has been given to very few children at risk.

Dr. Andersen also informed me
that Dr. Plesner was a consultant in the Dept. of Medical Affairs at
Statens at the time of preparing the paper. She has since left the
Institute and now has a position in the County Medical Office within the
municipality of Copenhagen.

Dr. Andersen also sent me a
copy of a paper recently published in the American Journal of
Preventive Medicine (2003; vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 101-106) that
concluded:

The body of existing data,
including the ecologic data presented herein, is not consistent with the
hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is
responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young
children being observed worldwide ("Autism and Thimerosal-Containing
Vaccines Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association" by Paul Stehr-Green,
DrPH, MPH, Peet Tull, Michael Stellfeld, MD, Preben-Bo Mortenson,
DrMedSC, Diane Simpson, MD, PhD).

According to the authors of
the study, they compared "the prevalence/incidence of autism in
California, Sweden, and Denmark with average exposures to
Thimerosal-containing vaccines" for the period covering the mid-1980s
through the late-1990s.

It would be impossible to
calculate how many lives have been saved by the
products of Statens Institute
and similar laboratories that manufacture vaccines. It is also impossible
to discover who might be "especially sensitive" to thimerosal. However,
the number of lives lost to diseases like measles because of parental fear
of vaccinating children is calculable. For example, there were over
1,500 reported cases of measles in an epidemic in Ireland in 2000. Because
of not being vaccinated, three children died.

This horse should be dead by now but as
long as there is some political benefit to scaring people into thinking Big
Government is conspiring with the Big Drug Cartel this horse will continue
to be dragged back on stage for an encore performance by knights in
tarnished armor claiming to be defending our children against outrageous
abuses.

Is there any truth in Kennedy's article?
There may well be but I am not going to waste my time tracking down every
claim he makes since I already know that he has distorted some very
important data and twisted facts to serve his purpose. There is no way to
close this issue of mercury and autism. Whatever data is available can
always be mined for some gem that supports the conspiratorial theory and
there is always hope that some future study will provide some support for
the causal belief. No study will ever be able to show with absolute
certainty once and for all that thimerosal or any other substance
does not cause autism in some people some of the time.

In the meantime, we must ask ourselves
what is the likelihood that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP),
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization (WHO),
the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the American Academy of Pediatrics have
joined a drug cartel to dupe the public by agreeing that there is no
evidence linking thimerosal and autism? Are we to believe, for example,
that the WHO made it all up when they published the results of a study that
examined the health records of 109,863 children born in Britain from 1988 to
1997 and found that children who had received the most thimerosal in
vaccines had the lowest incidence of developmental problems like autism?*
Or are we to believe the parents of autistic children who are desperately
seeking a villain? Consider what I wrote on
May 28, 2002:

How do you defend yourself
against the charge that you have caused an illness, despite the fact that
the alleged cause could have several origins, none of which might be
sufficient to do harm by itself? This is the very difficult position that
coal-burning power companies, pharmaceutical firms, dentists, producers of
fungicides or fluorescent lights or thermostats all find themselves in
because they use or transmit mercury or compounds of mercury.

Those who use mercury in
their products are being blamed for many illnesses, including autism.
Leading the fight is Lyn Redwood, whose son Will is autistic. She blames
mercury emitted by Georgia Power company and thimerosal in vaccinations
for her son's disorder. Even though there is no significant cluster of
similar cases in her neighborhood, which might indicate an
environmental cause, she blames them and others because her son is
"especially sensitive" to mercury. Their attorney, who is representing six
families, claims "In a fetus or in an infant, their saturation point is
reached. They're born with a very, very high level of mercury relative to
their ability to process it." This is an assumption. The mercury level of
infants is not something that is usually measured. Of course, the only way
a fetus can get mercury is through the mother. So, her vaccinations
may be to blame for the assumed high levels of mercury in the fetus.
However, maybe the mother ate contaminated fish or ate vegetables tainted
with a mercury-based fungicide. Maybe. That seems to be the key
word here. And perhaps and possibly.

It is fruitless to point out
that many people who are not autistic were exposed to much higher levels
of mercury as infants and children than those diagnosed with
autism. Concern over those "especially sensitive to mercury" begs the
question. "Special sensitivity to mercury" is an assumption. On the other
hand, there is a very real concern that should be emphasized: balancing
the benefits to society of vaccinations versus the known harm that will be
done. For the millions who would have died of disease had there not been a
vaccination program in effect, there are hundreds who will die because of
the vaccine itself. The smallpox vaccine has eradicated smallpox worldwide
and saves millions of lives a year.*
"Over 80% of the world's children are now being immunized against the
polio virus, and the annual number of cases has been cut from 400,000 in
1980 to 90,000 in the mid-1990s."*
Over a million children a year die of measles in those countries where
vaccinations are not available. Immunization may save more than 20,000,000
lives of children worldwide every year. Nevertheless, some children will
die because of the vaccinations because they are "especially sensitive."
It is hard to calculate exactly how many deaths each year are due to
vaccines, but it is in the hundreds, not millions.*
It is impossible to calculate the number of cases of autism that
are due to vaccinations, or pollution, or dental amalgam, etc., since
the current data do not support a causal connection between mercury and
autism, much less between vaccinations and autism.

The Redwoods' argument is
that even if no single source of mercury caused their son's autism, the
accumulation of mercury from several sources did. So, all sources should
share in the blame. Thus, there are two separate issues in the Redwoods'
suit. One, does mercury cause autism? And two, if it does, should those
who deliver mercury within the legal and scientific boundaries of safety
be held accountable for a harmful effect due to accumulation from several
"safe" sources?

the
causal connection

Dr. Andrew Wakefield sounded the alarm a few years ago about a
possible connection between the MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease
in children. Most scientists have dismissed Wakefield's work as
inadequate and
dangerous, but he is unrepentant and now claims that two new studies
will prove him right. A measles epidemic in
Ireland
has been blamed on Wakefield. Fears of an epidemic in
Scotland (where Wakefield operates) and
England are also feared because of Wakefield's claims.

Thimerosal has been used
since the 1930s. One would think that if it were so harmful, we might have
detected it before now. It is used in vaccinations as a preservative to
prevent contamination by microbes. "The amount of mercury a typical child
under two years receives from vaccinations equates to 237.5
micrograms...."* For comparison,
consider that a "6-ounce can of tuna fish contains an average of 17
micrograms of mercury."*
The daily mercury uptake from amalgam fillings is estimated to be
about 3 micrograms.*(A microgram is one millionth of a gram. There are about 28 grams in
an ounce.) "With the newly formulated vaccines, the maximum cumulative
exposure during the first six months of life will now total to no more
than 3 micrograms of mercury."*
This small amount is most probably harmless in itself. However, Redwood
claims that it is not harmless to those who are "especially sensitive."
She and many others want the mercury out of the vaccines. No doubt,
they will soon
get their wish. But there can be no guarantee that whatever replaces
thimerosal as a preservative may not eventually prove harmful to some who
are "especially sensitive" to the substitute. That will be the problem of
another group of parents, I suppose. If no preservative is used, any
childhood bacterial infection may be blamed on the vaccination by some
parents.

Is this just another sad case
of people desperate to blame someone for their misfortune? Not quite.
There are a number of scientists who support the Redwoods' claims. Some of
these scientists look at the effects of mercury poisoning and
compare them to the effects of autism.
The parallels are striking. They also note that "Autism spectrum
disorders have increased from 1 in 10,000 in 1978 to 1 in 300 in some US
communities in 1999."*
And, while the rate of vaccination has not increased by 3000 percent, the
number of vaccinations a child now receives during the first two years of
life has increased. In any case, some scientists and many laypeople think
that the increase in autism detection parallels the increase in
vaccinations and that this correlation indicates a causal connection.
(Correlations are notoriously slippery when it comes to establishing
causal connections. The crime rate may have gone down at the same rate as
the vaccination rate went up over the past twenty years, but no one would
claim that one caused the other just because of a correlation.)

Nobody doubts the dangers of
mercury poisoning. And it may be that one of the causal factors in autism
is mercury. But proving that the mercury in thimerosal is not a
crucial factor seems impossible, since even though studies indicate it is
not a major source of mercury, one can always claim that anyone who had a
vaccine and is autistic is "especially sensitive" to cumulative effects
from various sources.

sources
of mercury

What do we really know about
how much mercury is harmful and how many delivery systems of mercury there
are to be concerned about?

Mercury is a naturally occurring mineral that can be found throughout
the environment. Mercury forms can be found as the elemental metal or in
a wide variety of organic and inorganic compounds. There is a constant
biogeochemical cycle of mercury. This cycle includes: release of
elemental mercury as a gas from the rocks and waters (degassing);
long-range transport of the gases in the atmosphere; wet and dry
deposition upon land and surface water; absorption onto sediment
particles; bioaccumulation in terrestrial and aquatic food chains.*

Mercury....occurs naturally and is found in very small amounts in
oceans, rocks and soils. It becomes airborne when rocks erode, volcanoes
erupt and soil decomposes. It then circulates in the atmosphere and is
redistributed throughout the environment. Large amounts of mercury also
become airborne when coal, oil or natural gas are burned as fuel or
mercury-containing garbage is incinerated. Once in the air, mercury can
fall to the ground with rain and snow, landing on soils or water bodies,
causing contamination.

Elemental and inorganic mercury salts can be transformed into organic
mercury by the bacteria in the bottom mud in water bodies. Unlike
elemental mercury, organic mercury (often referred to as "methylmercury")
can be readily absorbed in humans. The most likely source of
methylmercury is eating contaminated fish. Human exposure to
methylmercury can result in long-lasting health effects, especially on
fetal development during pregnancy. In addition, mercury poisoning has
been linked to nervous system, kidney and liver damage and impaired
childhood development. Nervous system disorders include impaired vision,
speech, hearing and coordination.

The Redwoods claim that the
mercury from vaccines and power plants don't affect most people, but cause
autism in the "especially sensitive" by adding to other sources of mercury
beyond some "critical point" of safety. They may be right, and the claim
seems impossible to disprove. It will be interesting to see what juries
think--if it ever gets that far--since courtroom standards of scientific
evidence are notoriously low. It will also be interesting to see what
those sued will do. Will they give up and pay off the suers? Will they
decide that it will probably be cheaper to settle than to go to court and
win? Or will they try to fight it out, knowing how the media and the
public love an Erin
Brockovich-type story?

mercury
and autism

The Redwoods' concern about
mercury being tied to autism began when they read a report in 1999 from
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that said babies who receive
multiple doses of vaccines with thimerosal "may be exposed to more mercury
than recommended by federal guidelines."*
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says "five parts per million is
diagnostic for mercury toxicity."*
But, they recommend taking action if the mercury level reaches one part
per million. When he was four or five, the Redwoods' son had "mercury
levels in his hair" of "4.8 parts per million," according to his mother.
However, "the amount of mercury in hair does not reflect the concentration
in the rest of the body."*
According to Dr. Robert Baratz, "analyzing hair for mercury is a waste of
time and money and cannot be used to diagnose mercury poisoning. A
competent practitioner would easily know this."*
According to
Dr.
Stephen Barrett, hair analysis is a common sign of
quackery.

Mrs. Redwood says she had two
injections while pregnant and one while breastfeeding that contained
thimerosal.

However,
the EPA's reference dose, or RfD, was truly cautious, based on a single
episode of methylmercury poisoning in Iraq in which 81 children were
exposed to high levels of mercury in utero. The EPA calculated the RfD
by determining the dose that produced a 10% prevalence of adverse
neurological effects in the affected children, including late walking,
late talking, and abnormal neurological scores. The agency then placed a
95% confidence interval around this dose and divided the lower bound of
the interval by an "uncertainty factor" of 10 to arrive at the RfD.*

Thimerosal is metabolized in
humans to ethylmercury, not methymercury, but guidelines for
safe mercury intake relate only to methylmercury. The FDA's Center for
Biologics Evaluation & Research, the source of the Redwoods' information
about the potential dangers of vaccinations, assumed that "the toxicity of
the ethyl compound was equivalent to the methyl compound."*
Why? There is very little known about the toxic effects of ethylmercury.
Having insufficient knowledge regarding the dangers of ethylmercury, the
FDA treated it as if it were methylmercury. This may seem like erring on
the side of caution, but it isn't. For all the FDA knew, the ethyl
compounds could be significantly more dangerous than the methyl
compounds. Then again, the ethyl compounds might not be very dangerous at
all.

Further complicating matters
is the fact that, even if mercury is a causal agent in autism, genetic and
other biological functions might be involved. Infections might weaken
detoxification capabilities (like the production of
glutathione)
in some infants or young children.*This complicates matters as far as identifying what may be a
significant causal factor in an individual's autism, but it simplifies
matters for those who claim their children are "especially sensitive."
Their child may be born with a genetic predisposition to autism, or a
weakened immune system, or a defective ability to detoxify. Ethylmercury
may have triggered autism. On the other hand, their child may have
been born with no such predisposition or weaknesses. But, an infection may
have weakened the immune system or the ability to detoxify. Or, it could
have been methylmercury that triggered the autism and the source
could have been a mother's fondness for tuna fish. Perhaps. Possibly.
Maybe.

It seems that Kennedy has been used by
leaders of the anti-vaccine lobby to promote their cause, while at the same
time fueling an unnecessary distrust of vaccination. His article will not
save any lives but it could well cost a few. He put his credibility on the
line by beating on this dead horse. It will probably cost him plenty.

Finally, consider what I wrote on
September 9, 2004, about Michael Fitzpatrick's article on this issue that
appeared in The Guardian:

Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick,
author of
MMR and Autism (Routledge 2003), has a very interesting article in
the Guardian regarding parents of autistic children who believe
their personal experience and research--most of which has been guided only
by the desire to prove what they already believe, namely, that their
children's autism was caused by vaccinations--qualify them as experts on
both autism and vaccination. As the parent of an autistic child,
Fitzpatrick sympathizes with the desire to find something to blame for the
autism. But, as Dr. Fitzpatrick notes, being a parent of an autistic child
does not give him "any special insights into the question of what causes
autism, or into any other aspect of the condition."

There are several
anti-immunization websites and some of them are posting inaccurate
information about the evidence of a causal connection between vaccinations
and autism. Fitzpatrick's concern, however, is not just with the
misinformation but that

Any parent who looks to the
anti-immunisation campaigns for information will readily find strident
condemnations of the government, the medical establishment and the drug
companies. Anybody who defends immunisation can expect abuse and
allegations of corruption or conspiracy. The basic thrust of much of it
is that the pro-vaccination party has commercial links with drug
companies. Yet, perhaps not surprisingly, these anti-vaccination groups
often have their own links with commercial interests.

He notes that a group that
goes by the swell name of Jabs (Justice, awareness and basic support) has
been in litigation against MMR for more than a decade. The legal firm of
Alexander Harris

cleared around £5m out of
the total of £15m of legal-aid funding spent before the Legal Services
Commission pulled the plug last October. Jabs' encouragement of parents
to join this ill-conceived quest for compensation has had a demoralising
effect, not only on the families involved, but on the parents of
children with autism, who have been made to feel guilty that by giving
their children MMR they may have caused their condition.

According to Fitzpatrick, the
anti-immunization websites provide links to private clinics offering
alternative vaccines to MMR and to "mercury-free" MMR vaccines. "These
clinics have been major beneficiaries of popular anxieties about
immunisation, making 'substantial' profits by providing inferior vaccines
at inflated prices, to parents whose fears have been inflamed by
misinformation and scare-mongering journalism." One such beneficiary was
Dr. David Pugh, whose clinics in Sheffield and Elstree, Hertfordshire,
were closed down after allegations of unsanitary and fraudulent practices.
Pugh, who faces trial on criminal charges, has been endorsed by a number
of parent groups.

I can't begin to calculate the irony in
Kennedy's concluding statement:

It's hard to calculate the
damage to our country -- and to the international efforts to eradicate
epidemic diseases -- if Third World nations come to believe that America's
most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It's not
difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America's
enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers -- many of them sincere, even
idealistic -- who are participating in efforts to hide the science on
thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of
protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are
badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back
horribly to haunt our country and the world's poorest populations.

Yes, it is hard to calculate the damage
to our country and to millions of children around the world should their
parents or governments come to believe that vaccines are intended to harm
them thanks to the demagoguery and fearmongering of sincere, even idealistic
but misguided environmental lawyers.